Open Visible Claude Code TUI

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose side effects. It mentions tmux and the attach command, but does not state whether it spawns persistent sessions, requires tmux to be installed, has permission implications, or what happens if a session already exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences deliver the core action and the return value without any filler. The content is front-loaded and every word contributes useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex tool with 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It gives only a minimal return-value note and omits operational context, error handling, prerequisites, and relationships to sibling tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the individual parameter descriptions (mode, backend, permissionPolicy, etc.) are detailed, so the schema carries most semantic weight. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable under the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses specific verb phrases like 'Create or restore' and names the resource 'native Claude Code CLI in tmux', clearly identifying the tool's function. It still doesn't explicitly distinguish from companion_tui_resume, which likely also restores sessions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like companion_tui_resume, companion_open, or companion_tui_send. The description states what it does but not when it should be preferred or what prerequisites are needed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.